The debate on amending the constitution has reemerged in Nepal’s political landscape with the formation of the new government in July. The conversation on constitutional amendment has caught the public’s attention, marking the first time a new coalition has come together to amend the constitution. The recent alliance between the Nepali Congress (NC) and the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist–Leninist (CPN-UML) aims to revise the country’s nine-year-old constitution.
The discussions around constitutional amendment center on electoral reforms, a directly elected executive, and other issues related to federalism and secularism. For Nepal, amending the current constitution would unleash a host of challenges and power struggles for a nation grappling with political instability.
Nepal’s Constitutional Journey
With a history of almost 70 years of constitutional evolution, Nepal has seen seven different constitutions, reflecting varying political developments, from democratic to autocratic regimes.
The 2015 constitution, drafted by elected representatives after a decade-long Maoist insurgency, was hailed as Nepal’s most progressive, inclusive, and democratic charter, setting a path to end the country’s political transition. However, the post-transition period has been turbulent due to the compromise nature of the constitution among diverse political factions.
Right from the outset, Madhes-based parties expressed discontent with the constitution. The alliance formed against the monarchy by Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, and CPN-Maoist Center later included Madhes-based forces, each pursuing its own interests, leading to implementation challenges and constitutional violations.
Political leaders focused more on retaining power than enacting laws to implement the constitution, neglecting a critical review of the political basis, public expectations, positive aspects, and implementation challenges ten years after its adoption.
Reasons for Constitutional Amendment
The ruling Nepali Congress and CPN-UML alliance argues that constitutional amendment is crucial for political stability, essential for the country’s progress and prosperity. They target reforms in the current proportional representation electoral system, believed to be a major cause of political unrest. Discussions also hint at negotiations on federalism and secularism issues, though specifics on the amended articles and the process remain unclear.
Meanwhile, opposition parties express skepticism, viewing the amendment proposal as a ploy to dismantle the previous government. Public skepticism questions whether amending the constitution will truly secure a stable political future.
It is crucial to analyze why Nepal continually experiments with constitutions and why political parties rush into amending the existing constitution without understanding its implementation flaws.
The current amendment proposal could be a pretext for the major parties to alternate in leadership positions, as two months into the alliance, a clear roadmap for the constitutional amendment process is absent.
Diverse Political Agendas
The amendment process will be intricate, considering it took nearly a decade to finalize the current constitution that replaced the 2007 interim constitution.
Discussions on amendment will raise issues, differences, and challenges, with various parties in Nepal holding different interests and agendas likely to surface. Disagreements persist on constitutional provisions related to the representation of marginalized communities, provincial boundaries, and the efficacy of the electoral system.
Constitutional amendment holds varying significances for different political groups, involving electoral system reforms and directly elected executive positions for the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML. The Rastriya Swatantra Party seeks to ensure its political presence in upcoming elections, while Maoists focus on identity, inclusion, and executive presidency. Discussions may also broach the topic of federalism, with pro-monarchy parties advocating for a Hindu state restoration.
Given the diverse interests, spearheading the constitutional amendment discussion will be arduous, potentially exacerbating political uncertainty and instability if not managed prudently.
Fostering Nepal’s Constitutional Culture
Irrespective of a constitution’s progressiveness, its efficacy hinges on sincere and upright political actors for implementation. Amidst discussions on constitutional revision, Nepali political parties often prioritize individual gains, implicating the efficacy of forming a consensus government for amendment. The prevalent culture of coalition and agreements risks political stability, lacking a constitutional ethos and foresight as governments pursue self-serving deals.
Any constitutional amendment demands meticulous planning and public acceptance through consultative mechanisms involving citizens. By ignoring this constitutional culture, the process could spiral into discord and harm the nation’s stability.